Re: [s-d] A Solution?

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Justin Ahmann wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: comex <comexk@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 5:31:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [s-d] A Solution?
>
> On Wednesday 12 December 2007, Justin Ahmann wrote:
>   
>> Gamestate 2a: A Game Action can be undone within 1 nday. I think I've
>> been using this interpretation.
>> Gamestate 2b: A Game Action takes effect 1 nday after its announcement,
>> unless it is declared invalid.
>>     
> In 2b I intended to say that it takes effect 1 nday after its announcement 
> *if it was otherwise invalid*.  If it was in fact valid according to the 
> rules, then it took effect immediately.
>
> What if its validity is in dispute?
>
>
>   
>> The two possibilities below:
>>
>> In the first one, I again fail to see why I'm not dictator.  I am not
>> dictator through declaring actions invalid; I am dictator through
>> changing the gamestate in a way that, based on this interpretation, is
>> not even a Game Action.
>>     
>
> See the chess argument.  There is always a metarule among games that the 
> gamestate only changes in ways the rules allow it to.  If you look in the 
> rulebook of Monopoly, you will not find a Monopoly Mode rule; it is 
> implied.
>
> Nomic is about pushing the envelope of the rules.  If the rules require such a metarule, then that's fine for chess and Monopoly, but in a full-scale nomic, it is the perogative of the players to push the envelope of the metarules.
>
>
>
> The rules do not mention that posting a message to the Public Forum can 
> cause you to change the gamestate, whether or not that's by a Game Action, 
> so you can't.  
>
>
>
>
> So how do we change the gamestate?  I'd say that there's also a metarule here saying that if something looks like a gamestate change, walks like a gamestate change, quacks like a gamestate change, and isn't by definition NOT a gamestate change, it is a gamestate change.
>
> Somebody also said something recently about doing away with metarules.  That is the purpose of the rule changes below.
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>> I suggest the following changes/additions to the ruleset (Note that they
>> are not fully polished and formalized):
>>
>> A Game Action is defined as any action that changes the gamestate.
>>     
>
> I don't like this definition.  Game Actions are how Outsiders change the 
> gamestate; if the rules autochange the gamestate, then that has not been 
> considered a Game Action.
>
>
>
>
> Good point.
>
>
>
>
>   
>> An External Force can only take a Game Action if explicitly allowed by
>> the Ruleset.  If an External Force (henceforth the Actor) attempts to
>> take a Game Action not so allowed by the Ruleset, a Player may point
>> this fact out.  If the Actor fails to present a Rule allowing said Game
>> Action as of the time the Actor attempted it within 1 nday, said Game
>> Action becomes Invalid. [[It may be in dispute as to whether the Rule
>> does, in fact, allow said Game Action.  If so, a Consultation is
>> suggested.  External Forces are encouraged to refrain from attempting to
>> take Game Actions whose validity hinges on the validity of said Game
>> Action.]]
>>     
>
> This seems like it won't actually do anything, because in most cases the 
> action would be invalid whether or not this rule made it so.
>
>
>
>
> This is really to flush (flesh?) out the details of the marginal actions.
>
>
>
>
> Anyway, if we get into the whole proposing-fixes phase, I will probably 
> make my own proposal.  But you realize that we pretty much need to go 
> through the Rule 0 procedure to collapse any potential gamestates.  If you 
> were to implement such changes as Grand Chancellor, we would be just as 
> stuck as we were in the first place.
>
> See 4.
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>   
Not to mention, that your actions declaring yourself Chancellor took
place after the modifications to Rule 1-10 were declared. Even if your
action was correct, you never received 2 support. :) If the actions that
purported to modify Rule 1-10 never occurred because they /couldn't/
occur, then your actions didn't take place either.

Therefore, no matter how you parse it, you're not Supreme Chancellor,
and you don't get a win by dictatorship.

Q.E.D.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss